|
>
Department >
Home >
Wildlife
Wildlife Extension Program
Turn Your Ranch’s Wildlife Into an Asset
By Jim Knight, MSU Extension
Wildlife Specialist
"It’s
important to recognize that this public access
program can be tailor-made for your operation."
|
Ranchers often look at wildlife as a liability and
as an obstacle to maximizing economic efficiency on
a ranch. We recognize that in some cases, big game compete
with livestock for available forage, cause damage to
haystacks, damage fences and, in general, provide challenges
for ranchers. But maybe we should look at potential
ways to make wildlife a positive part of a ranch operation
rather than a negative part.
Hunting Access Programs
Several states have programs to provide economic incentives
to landowners who allow public hunting on their ranches.
If a landowner needs to have big game populations managed,
hunting is the most logical management tool available.
Payment for allowing public access for hunting can be
significant. In Montana, legislative action in 1995
increased the amount of payment a landowner can receive
up to $8,000. Montana’s program is called Block
Management.
Some landowners are discouraged from participating
in Block Management because the landowner feels that
public hunting may get out of hand. It’s important
to recognize that this public access program can be
tailor-made for your operation. If you feel a limited
number of hunter days is desirable, this may be a part
of your agreement. If you feel you would like the hunters
to contact you directly, this can also be a part of
the agreement. Take time to discuss with Fish, Wildlife
and Parks just what your payment would be for the particular
hunting program you would allow.
Conservation Easement
The utilization of conservation easements as an incentive
for landowners to provide wildlife habitat is not new.
Conservation easements have, however, generated more
interest recently because wildlife agencies realize
that many of the interests of the landowner are compatible
with the interests of the wildlife habitat manager.
Many landowners do not realize the significance of payment
that can be made for entering into a conservation easement,
nor do they realize the flexibility that can be incorporated
into the agreement.
It is important to recognize that just as an oil or
power line easement on a deed is permanent, so is a
conservation easement. A conservation easement is attached
to the deed and provides for certain restrictions as
to how the land is utilized in the future. If a landowner
is concerned that the ranch will be worth less in the
future, then payment for the easement should be invested
to make up the difference in net worth.
Most conservation easements are designed to keep the
land from being subdivided. Payment for the conservation
easement is usually based on how much the value of the
property would be reduced if it could not be subdivided
versus what developers would be willing to pay for the
land at the present time. Most conservation easements
not only allow, but encourage that present agricultural
practices continue. For some landowners the attractiveness
of a conservation easement is that the land will be
guaranteed to stay in the use it is in today. Traditional
producers who have been on a ranch for many years are
sometimes attracted to a guarantee that the ranch will
stay in one piece.
Many landowners are concerned that participation in
a conservation easement will open their land to the
public. It is important to recognize that the terms
of a conservation easement are entirely negotiable.
If, for example, a landowner desires that only limited
hunting be allowed on the ranch, this is something that
can be put in the easement. If the landowner wants only
hunters selected by them to be on the ranch, again this
is something that can be put into the agreement.
Some landowners are concerned that entering into a
conservation easement agreement will prevent their heirs
from being able to live on the ranch and have a homesite.
Again, a great deal of flexibility is allowed in the
conservation easement, and areas can be designated for
future homesites or potential homesites.
There have been some situations in which the presence
of a conservation easement attached to a deed actually
increased the value of the land. Much of the interest
in land purchased in the West are from people oriented
toward conservation. The attachment of a conservation
easement will often make the land more attractive to
these types of buyers.
The amount of payment is dependent on the value of
the land as wildlife habitat and – to a certain
extent – the potential for that land to be developed
in the near future. Some situations have resulted in
land areas as small as 5,000 acres being placed into
conservation easements for payments as high as $1.5
million. In other areas where the wildlife habitat values
are not as significant, the payments may be significantly
less. The highest payments are for large portions of
land providing critical habitat in areas sought for
development.
Leasing to Outfitters
Many landowners lease their hunting to outfitters.
This can be a significant source of income. If the right
outfitter is utilized, this practice can result in sound
wildlife management incorporated into ranch management
needs. However, the price an outfitter pays the landowner
will be significantly less than what the outfitter will
charge hunters. Studies have shown that most of the
price a hunter will pay is dependent upon the services
provided. These services are what the outfitter provides.
A landowner should receive 10 to 50 percent of what
the outfitter charges a hunter. This percentage will
depend on what the landowner provides and the demand
for the ranch’s hunting opportunities.
If a rancher is considering deriving income from wildlife
resources through the use of an outfitter, it is important
that the landowner interview and discuss the situation
with several outfitters before a decision is made. It
is also recommended that the initial contract with an
outfitter be for one or two years so that the landowner
will have the option of ending the relationship if the
program is not working out. Once it is established that
the outfitter is providing for the needs of the landowner,
a longer term contract may be desirable so that wildlife
management and population decisions can be long term.
Most outfitters are interested in harvesting adult,
male big game animals. From the rancher’s standpoint,
overall population control, which includes anterless
animals as well, is a major concern. An outfitter who
only allows for trophy harvest will soon leave the rancher
with a big game population problem.
Liability is always a concern of landowners who are
deriving income from wildlife. A landowner who is leasing
the hunting rights to an outfitter should be certain
that the landowner is specifically named in the liability
insurance policy which is provided either by the outfitter
or the landowner. Often an outfitter will provide the
landowner with evidence that the outfitter has liability
insurance. This means little to the landowner unless
the landowner is specifically named as being protected
under the policy.
Fee Hunting Enterprises
Although outfitting is accepted in the West as a legitimate
enterprise, there is much controversy associated with
landowners conducting their own fee hunting operations.
Although most wildlife interests recognize that landowners
who look at wildlife as an asset rather than as a liability
will take better care of their wildlife, there are still
traditional and social concerns associated with landowners
charging for hunting on private land.
Many landowners find the goodwill provided by free
hunting is enough benefit to continue allowing free
hunting. Other landowners have found past negative experiences
with public hunters or their own economic situation
to be the incentive they need to charge for hunting
opportunities on their land. Many places throughout
the West are receiving $7,000 per elk hunter. Deer and
antelope may bring as much as $3,000 or $4,000. Individuals
willing to pay these prices to hunt on private land
expect a quality hunting opportunity and not a guaranteed
hunt. It’s important to recognize that the recreational
experience and the services provided are what allow
income to be derived from hunting situations.
A landowner considering a hunting enterprise should
first recognize some of the positive and negative connotations
of this decision.
A landowner must have the right personality to deal
with public hunters and provide a quality and enjoyable
experience for clientele. They must be willing to accept
strangers on their land and welcome them as guests.
For many landowners this is a difficult situation because
they have little tolerance for individuals who don’t
understand the complexities of a ranching operation.
Some landowners recognize that they have this shortcoming
and hire a hunt manager or designate a family member
or employee who has the necessary personality.
Consider the social and traditional concerns associated
with fee hunting operations. Utilizing local hunters
as guides or offering public hunts for anterless animals
will sometimes help alleviate concerns. Put some of
your profits into improving wildlife habitat and consider
hunt donations as fund raisers for sports groups.
Some landowners are concerned about liability associated
with wildlife enterprises. While this is certainly a
legitimate concern, it can be addressed by obtaining
the necessary insurance coverage and looking at this
expense as a cost of the enterprise. As with any enterprise,
expenses are paid through income received. Although
records of successful lawsuits involving wildlife enterprises
are limited, the importance of liability coverage revolves
around the costs associated with legal fees when defending
oneself in a lawsuit. Landowners should contact their
insurance agent to see if their insurance policy already
covers a potential hunting enterprise or how much a
rider to their policy would cost.
A landowner should weigh all the costs and benefits
before entering into a fee hunting operation. If the
fee hunting operation will allow the ranch to remain
economically viable and if the wildlife enterprise prevents
the land from being subdivided or developed, then certainly
the benefits to wildlife outweigh the costs of limiting
public hunting opportunities.
Non-game and Non-consumptive Opportunities
Some people find it amazing that visitors to the West
are willing to pay for the opportunity to shoot prairie
dogs, go bird-watching, or take pictures of deer. But
the fact is, many recreationists are more concerned
about the time they have available than whether they
have to pay for their experiences.
Your ranch might derive supplemental income from providing
recreational opportunities. Advertising in appropriate
magazines or newsletters might help you contact people
interested in a place to go gopher or prairie dog hunting.
Some people like to hunt coyotes or fish your streams.
More income can be derived by renting out part of the
bunkhouse.
Photo safaris are not new, but few landowners realize
the demand for wildlife photo opportunities. Photo buffs
are willing to pay for “good shots,” and
all the rancher needs to do is point out the best areas
or put up blinds near prairie chicken grounds, deer
crossings or other places. Again, the bunkhouse or a
place to park the RV can provide additional income.
Keep your mind open and look for recreational income-producing
opportunities on your ranch. We often take ranch situations
for granted that might be unique to others.
Summary
Economically difficult times may provide the incentive
for ranchers to look at opportunities associated with
big game populations on their private land. Ranchers
should consider these opportunities with an open mind
and understand that there is a great deal of flexibility
to accommodate their concerns about public access and
conservation easement programs.
There are major concerns associated with landowners
deriving income from wildlife. However, individuals
who are sincerely concerned about the welfare of wildlife
and the sustainability of traditional land use should
recognize that practices that make wildlife appreciated
rather than unwelcome should be practices we encourage.
|